If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible
I see; the fire gave light to see them, though it had no power of heat to burn them.
Like the Son of God; a Divine, most beautiful, and glorious countenance; either of a mere angel, or rather of Jesus Christ, the Angel of the covenant, who did sometimes appear in the Old Testament before his incarnation, Genesis 12:7 18:10,13,17,20 Exo 23:23 33:2 Joshua 5:13-15 Proverbs 8:31; in all which places it is Jehovah; Genesis 19:24 Exodus 3:2 Acts 7:30,32,33,38.

Notice that while Poole believed the "fourth figure" was a Christophany he allowed that it might have been an angel. Indeed, I do not find in any of these commentators a dogmatic opinion that it HAD to be THE SON of God in the fire. Clearly they were not acolytes of a KJVO movement although the KJV certaintly existed in their days.

Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible
Daniel 3:25. Is like the Son of God— Rather like a Son of God, or of the gods: in agreement with the Hebrew, LXX, and Syriac; that is to say, "Like a divine and glorious person, sent from the powers above to rescue and deliver these men." For, as Nebuchadnezzar was an idolater, it is scarcely to be conceived that he should know any thing concerning the Son of God, the Messiah, and much less of his form and likeness: whereas all the heathens had a notion, which runs through their theology, of the sons of the deities, as powerful beings sent often to the aid and protection of mankind.

Yorzhik, YES there have been minor printing errors in the KJB. I have admitted this over and over again. But we King James Bible know where God's complete and inerrant words are found - the present day printings of the King James Bible Cambridge editions.

Yes. Exactly as I previously said:

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

My highlighting. Will Duffy wasn't asking what the cause of these errors were. You didn't answer the question. He asked you what year the errors were finally eradicated. You wrote thousands of words wasting your time and changing the subject. You could have answered with a simple date. Perhaps your first bolded section is the most revealing of your thought processes

but it is not there today

In other words you only believe that the Bible you can buy today is 100% inerrant. So long as you, Will Kinney, are well sorted, that is all that matters. I don't think you care that none of those people in the past 2000 years had this version.

Your credibility is in shreds. You say 'inerrant' and 'printing errors' in the same paragraph. We use ordinary language here. Inerrant means without error. Got it?

Got it?

Total Misanthropy.Uncertain salvation.Luck of the draw.Irresistible damnation.Persecution of the saints.

Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.(The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

Notice that while Poole believed the "fourth figure" was a Christophany he allowed that it might have been an angel. Indeed, I do not find in any of these commentators a dogmatic opinion that it HAD to be THE SON of God in the fire. Clearly they were not acolytes of a KJVO movement although the KJV certaintly existed in their days.

Shasta has a hard time understanding English

Originally Posted by Shasta

You need to study Jamison Fausett and Brown more carefully. Here is what they said:

The Commentators treat the scriptures on two levels. On one hand, they admit that the king was saying the "fourth man" in the fire was an angel or messengersent by the gods. At the same time they maintain that this was a Christophany. This shows that even they believe that the letter of the text conveys the idea that this person is an angelic messenger not theSon of God. This being the case, the most appropriate way to render the verse is that the fourth man is "a son (a messenger or agent) of the gods." Do we think Nebuchadnezzar thought the Hebrew God had only ONE messenger in his entourage?

Aren't people's words supposed to be understood by how THEY meant them and not by what it happens to stimulate in the minds of the? Here they admit that the king did not believe the fourth man was a chief among the gods but a mere messenger. Also, if that was really his belief why translate HIS words as "THE SON of GOD" when he most certainly would have said "a son of gods." It was obvious to these commentators that Nebuchadnezzar meant (his equivalent of) an angel.

Shasta. What I said, and still say is the Jamieson, Faussett and Brown themselves believed that this was the Son of God who was with the Hebrew children. I know that they go into what they think Nebuchadnezzar thought, but what was the conclusion Jamieson, Faussett and Brown gave us at the very end there? You DID read it, right?

This is their own conclusion when commenting on Daniel 3:25 - "Really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation."

They sided with the way the King James Bible has it.

By the way, here is a more complete list of Bible translations that read like the King James Bible in Daniel 3:25 And when you look at the actual translation of the most common "Septuagint" in print that is out there, it says "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD" So does Brenton's New Translation of 2012.

"The fourth is like THE SON OF GOD"

"And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" is the reading of Wycliffe Bible 1395 - "the fourthe is lijk the sone of God.", the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God.", the Douay-Rheims of 1610 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.",the King James Bible 1611, The Bill Bible 1671, Webster's translation 1833,the Brenton Translation 1851, the Calvin Bible of 1855, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Smith Bible 1876, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD", the Douay of 1950, The Word of Yah 1993, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "the fourth is like that of the Son of God.", The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the NKJV of 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF ELAH", the 2009 Bond Slave Version, the Asser Septuagint 2009 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."

It is also the reading of The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "and the form of the fourth is like the Bar Elohin (Ben Elohim, Hebrew).", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "the form of the fourth is like the Son of God", Conservative Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The New Brenton Translation 2012, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2012 - “the form of the fourth is like the Bar-Elahin”, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD." and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God!”

This online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."

The NKJV 1982 also reads: "the fourth is like the Son of God" but then it has a footnote that reads: "Or a son of the gods". A son of the Gods, would not be the Son of the only true and living God. "A son of the gods" would not be the Lord Jesus Christ who was with them in the fiery furnace.

Have you, like some others, received a personal revelation from the Almighty that one particular translation, (after several revisions) was eventually transformed into an inerrant Bible that perfectly and in all parts reflects every meaning and nuance of the original languages in exact English equivalents. Surely you can see that this narrative is an extra-Biblical construct. When Paul said "all scripture is God-breathed" he was not talking about the coming of the KJB.

I call this view Translational Gnosticism because the Gnostics of the First and Second Centuries believed they received revelations of divine truth that were not based in scripture. There is a difference between this view and that of people who, on the whole, believe the KJV is better than other translations. People who hold that opinion would not go as far as to say that even their favorite translation is always right in every respect. The presumption of divine revelation closes the mind to reason and commits a person to an unceasing defense, not of the Word but of every last word of the KJB.

The fact is most of the mainstream commentators I cited did not base their study of the scriptures solely on the KJB (even though many obviously preferred it) but upon hermeneutical, linguistic, historical and cultural facts. That they did this is evidence of their commitment to search the word as noble Bereans. It is also evidence of the fairly recent advent of the KJVO belief.

Had they believed completely in the KJVO doctrine they never would have been so honest in their treatment of Daniel 3:25. Rather, they would have tried to justify the KJV's rendering of this verse from the outset. Their "commentaries" would not have been an exploration of scripture but a polemic for KJVO. As it was, some of them presented contradictory opinions which resulted from trying to maintain Biblical scholarship while simultaneously holding to a traditional view that was incompatible.

Yorzhik, YES there have been minor printing errors in the KJB. I have admitted this over and over again. But we King James Bible know where God's complete and inerrant words are found - the present day printings of the King James Bible Cambridge editions. Or I can show you an online site where you can see it. Or give you the names of some American publishing companies where you can get one.

Most of these minor printing errors were corrected in the first 30 years by two men who were the original translators.

You guys who are bible agnostics and unbelievers in an inerrant Bible in any language, will insist that these minor printing errors prove that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible.

For those of us who believe God has given us an inerrant Bible,we can tell you where it is. It is the King James Bible you can buy in any bookstore today.

You guys, on the other hand, will NEVER show us a copy of the inerrant Bible simply because none of you really believes such a thing exists. It is just that simple and easily shown. NONE of you will ever come out and take a serious and consistent stand on ANY Bible in any language as being the Standard of inerrancy.

And so you mock and ridicule those of us who believe God really has given us an inerrant Bible.

Now, just out of curiosity, how would you translate that verse you were talking about in Romans 8?

OK. So printing errors don't count. One could reasonably ask "Why? Why don't printing errors count?" Especially since "minor" errors are still errors and remove the label of "inerrant", and have the same potential of creating the confusion that other translations could lead to. Let's move on to other types of errors.

You said in your article on Ex 20:13 "For this simple reason, abortion is the law of the land. It is not illegal for a doctor to deprive a living child of its life if the mother consents to this act."

But a better understanding of the issue is that it doesn't matter if the law of the land says something is lawful or not. What matters is what God considers the act in this context, which is correctly called "murder" and not "killing" because the baby murder industry is glad to say they are killing a fetus. It is only when they are faced with the truth, that they are murdering a baby, that everyone can see that what they are doing is wrong.

Do you still stand by your assertion that "kill" is a better translation than "murder" in Ex 20:13?

As to the translation of Rom 8:28. I don't read Greek so I cannot translate it. I told you is wasn't my translation. What makes you think the correct translation I've presented isn't inspired? Just because you don't like it? Just because it isn't the KJV?